I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[Raven Crowking]

One of the issues brought up before, the lack of a front line fighter with a high AC might raise the EL by as much as one factor.

One of the OP's points was that CR/EL shouldn't have to be recalculated based upon who the PCs are. In any event, this might lower the effectiveness of the party overall (i.e., lower the party's collective EL) but it shouldn't effect the EL of the monsters. Otherwise, parties with suboptimal components that defeat foes should gain more XP than those with optimal components.

(Flat XP values for monsters, how I miss you.)

Terrain that funnels toward a heavy combat might raise the EL by as much as one factor. Not only is the fight unavoidable, it can only be approached from a single direction.

WTF? Is the CR/EL system only scaled for an open, treeless plain without rocks or stones?

Only being able to use low damage melee weapons against a high hp opponent might raise the EL by as much as one factor.

Not if it prevents that same opponent from using its most powerful attacks against you.

Giving built in cover to a creature against whom ranged weapons are the best offensive weapons might raise the EL by as much as one factor.

It sounds to me more like the OP gave cover to the PCs from said monster. BTW, even with cover, arrows are eventually going to be effective. Even without a high-AC type fighter, you could attempt Intimidate or Sleep. Or you could try to bribe the ogre....they're not the brightest bulbs in the Monster Manual. There are lots of options that don't require the "standard" party build. Lure the ogre outside if you think the terrain is too much in its favour.....smoke it out if you have to. A party of 1st level characters, even in 3.0, can take on an ogre and survive if they are clever and a little lucky.

 

[Mark CMG]

One of the OP's points was that CR/EL shouldn't have to be recalculated based upon who the PCs are.

This is an incorrect assumption. Any system needs to be written to a standard and anything that deviates from the standard, on either side of the equation, needs to be considered. In the case of going up toe to toe against a heavy-melee monster, a low AC party is going to be at a decided disadvantage.

In any event, this might lower the effectiveness of the party overall (i.e., lower the party's collective EL) but it shouldn't effect the EL of the monsters. Otherwise, parties with suboptimal components that defeat foes should gain more XP than those with optimal components.

Yes.

Is the CR/EL system only scaled for an open, treeless plain without rocks or stones?

If terrain is a factor in a given combat, skewed toward one side or the other, then it is a factor in the EL.

Not if it prevents that same opponent from using its most powerful attacks against you.

You are not considering the most important aspects of this adjustment. The real advantage of the ogre is in the damage bonus done, regardless of the weapon used. A single hit still kills(?) anyone in the party. Hitting a little less in an environment that also hinders the PCs from hitting and also reduces the overall damage of the PCs to relatively nothing gives an advantage to the ogre, in this situation. It lengthens the combat which, in fact, gives more opportunities for the ogre to kill someone in melee.

It sounds to me more like the OP gave cover to the PCs from said monster. BTW, even with cover, arrows are eventually going to be effective.

The ogre might make an initial attack with a javelin, but after that cover is no advantage to the PCs and still an advantage to the ogre. He is going to close with someone and ranged weapons are less likely to be a factor at all. It harms the ogre once, and harms the PCs for as long as they utilize their ranged weapons (which, I say again, they would be better off using than melee weapons in this encounter).

 

[Schmoe]

One of the OP's points was that CR/EL shouldn't have to be recalculated based upon who the PCs are. In any event, this might lower the effectiveness of the party overall (i.e., lower the party's collective EL) but it shouldn't effect the EL of the monsters. Otherwise, parties with suboptimal components that defeat foes should gain more XP than those with optimal components.

Quite simply, given the potential variations in party make-up, it is impossible to have a completely accurate system for measuring opponent difficulty that works regardless of who the PCs are. There will always be some DM discretion involved based on his knowledge of not only the PCs, but also of his players. That is why the CR system is both a guideline and an approximation. To those with lots of experience eyeballing an encounter, it may not be very helpful. To those with very little experience balancing encounters, it at least gets them in the right ballpark.

Even though I have quite a few years of DM experience, I still use CR to quickly eliminate potential adversaries. Once I've narrowed down the pool of contenders, I start to take a closer look at balancing the encounter. This is especially helpful because I'm not intimately familiar with 100% of all the creatures out there. Sure, I know not to throw a Hill Giant at my 2nd level party, but what about a Dark Weaver? The CR allows me to approximate the expected outcome without reading the stat block in detail, which saves me time.

 

[Nebulous]

Well, i just want to chime in and say i've always paid minimal attention to CR. At a glance, i think it is a very useful tool for determining the relative strength of a monster, but i've never run an battle where i calculate the odds based on the CR. To do that, i look at a monsters chance to hit vs. the character's AC, how much damage it dishes out vs. their HP, and how high its AC is. And some special abilities that might kick in. Even in the heat of combat it's easy to make a monster too tough, or too easy, so there's always some adjudication behind the scenes.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is an incorrect assumption. Any system needs to be written to a standard and anything that deviates from the standard, on either side of the equation, needs to be considered.

The CR/EL system is a direct descendent of the "Monster Level" system from the 1st Edition DMG. While I would agree that the CR/EL system is, in many ways, an improvement on that system, there are other ways in which it is not. IMHO, of course.

The Monster Level system worked by determining XP first, and gave you a fairly clear system by which XP were determined. XP for all standard monsters were already predetermined. It then placed the monster in a "level" category based upon its XP. The "Monster Level" roughly corresponded to the "dungeon level" or equivilent where the creature was likely to be encountered.

The CR/EL system fails to make clear the standard on which it is based. Unlike the old Monster Level system, you cannot look at a creature, do a little math, and slot it into the appropriate category. The reason that the 3.0 ogre problem exists is that CR has a higher "guesswork" component than ML.

The CR system is written based upon a standard to which the PCs must adhere; the ML system was written based upon a standard to which the monsters must adhere. Because the CR system assumes that the DM will challenge the players according to their character's levels and abilities, the CR system is designed to work only in the most standard of games. The paradigm behind the ML system is that the players decide how far into the dungeon they are willing to venture, and thus choose their level of opponent based upon their own perceptions of their abilities.

The ML system is more flexable, IMHO, because changes you make to the game world (such as the prevelance of magic weaponry) can be quickly mapped into the XP calculation or some monsters can simply be avoided because the DM knows that the player characters don't have the means to defeat it. The factors in the CR system are more nebulous, and require greater adjudication on the part of the DM in order to make them work with changes to the game environment.

Of course, as module series show, the paradigm that spawned the ML system wasn't always strictly adhered to (or there wouldn't be modules "suitable" for any particular character levels), and DMs would often end up "eyeballing" encounters to determine if the PCs would survive. However, survivability itself was less important in 1e than in 3e, and it was easier to use some types of resources (especially spells) in unusual ways before they were codified to preclude such a high level of versitility.

In any event, there is absolutely no problem in using the CR/EL system with the assumption that EL is a function of creature(s) and special circumstances, regardless of character abilities. It is better, IMHO, that an EL 2 encounter means the same thing to all games than that an EL 2 encounter is defined by the makeup of the PC party facing it.

Also, in regards to your other points, the assumption is that the only way to "beat" the ogre is in melee combat. This is simply untrue. Because the ogre isn't easily beaten in a straight-out fight doesn't mean that the PCs can't "win" the encounter through other means. A party that isn't optimized for combat is, presumably, optimized for some other means to deal with problems.


RC

 

[jolt]

Quite simply, given the potential variations in party make-up, it is impossible to have a completely accurate system for measuring opponent difficulty that works regardless of who the PCs are. There will always be some DM discretion involved based on his knowledge of not only the PCs, but also of his players. That is why the CR system is both a guideline and an approximation. To those with lots of experience eyeballing an encounter, it may not be very helpful. To those with very little experience balancing encounters, it at least gets them in the right ballpark.

Agreed. In fact, I think that party composition and location are essential in accurately determining the EL of an encounter. A party of four wizards is going to be challenged by different things than one of four barbarians. A wyvern is a significantly different when encountered outdoors as opposed to being in room 24B of dungeon level 8 where he's unable to fly.

Now, if you're capable of eyeballing things accurately, so much the easier.

jolt

 

[mcrow]

I don't think it would have solved the problem you had here, but:

Every party should include atleast 1 fighter or barbarian, if you use only the core books. Normally, that will go a long ways tword killing things. Beyond the big hitters, a spellcaster and a healer help.

 

[Odysseus]

Paraphrased from the DMG, if the EL is 1 to 4 levels above the party. Then one or more characters may die.

Twofalls original choice of a CR2 monster agianst a 1st level party , gave the exactly the right result one or more characters died.

 

[bento]

I believe the ogre is somewhat gimpped by the same stuff that's affecting the kobolds inside. There's a corruption that runs throughout the cave, and you could have played this up more to put him at a disadvantage.

There's also a fire pit in the room which your players could use to their advantage, i.e. bullrushing him into the pit. Sounds like your adventurers didn't have the strength right out the gate. When I ran this I had six players and within the first round the players had the ogre knocked into the pit and in two, dead.

You have to get past this part because there's an entrance from the ogre's home into the main cavern. The real killer when I ran it was the tunnel above the cavern with the 30 degree pitch. We lost two players in that section.

 

[Mark CMG]

The CR/EL system is a direct descendent of the "Monster Level" system from the 1st Edition DMG.

I think the similarlity ends at the task they are generally meant to accomplish.

Also, in regards to your other points, the assumption is that the only way to "beat" the ogre is in melee combat.

That would be the exact opposite assumption based on my posts. I have repeatedly pushed toward avoiding melee combat with a creature designed specifically to excel at melee combat. The point made in my posts in regard to EL is that the terrain and conditions favor a melee monster should melee combat ensue, thus raising the EL.